Piltdown Superman

Materialists are physicalists: physical properties are all that matter, and when you die, you're worm food. No soul, no afterlife, no rewards or punishment, nothing. (Atheists have a message of hope? Not hardly!) Christians and others believe that we have a mind or soul that is independent of the body, and some materialists suggest that it may be real, but they can't find where it resides (see " The Quantum Soul? "). The mind is not the brain, but the mind  uses  the brain as its conduit, if you will. Some extremely impressive technology supports this belief. Image credit: Pixabay / GDJ Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurological disease that destroys voluntary muscle movement, but often leaves the mind intact. A woman with ALS was fitted with a computer interface that gives her some remarkable abilities to communicate and some motion, which is caused by thinking  about the motion. She can also pray without thinking about muscle movements. All of thi

Regular readers know that I keep emphasizing that scientists are not the dispassionate automatons that many people think. They are not running around, gathering facts, then following where the evidence leads. Rather, they are human, having their preconceptions as well as good and bad character traits. It's been more obvious lately (or has the trend increased?) that the secular science industry has a definite leftist penchant (see references 7,8,9 at this link ). It gets worse. Image credit: Pixabay /  Gerd Altmann The scientific establishment also has some intrinsic moral problems, and needs to borrow a moral compass . Moral concerns of scientists would definitely be improved by biblical Christianity , especially since left-learning science institutions are increasingly activistic for the murder of unborn humans in the womb. If you study on it a spell, you'll see it's not all that surprising, since they deny God the Creator (therefore, denying that we are created in

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have come up with another "theory' about the extinction of the dinosaurs. Why would they do a thing like that? Because none of the theories that have been passed around present adequate explanations of data. Also, someone needed money, so she wrote a book. Years ago, I was giving presentations about creation science and evidence against evolution. One thing I forcefully stated was that evolutionists present layers of "theories", but they are flawed all the way down to the foundation. In this case, a cosmologist invokes dark matter. This stuff is a rescuing device for the Big Bang, and has never been demonstrated to exist (so they keep making excuses for its absence instead of admitting it's paralogical). The spurious theory also involves the fictitious Oort Cloud, another rescuing device for the fact that comets would have been exhausted in an old universe. What stymies this child is how such pedagese not only gets accepted for

If y'all have ever been way down south in Dixie (southern United States) or watched movies and such, you may have noticed cypress trees in wet areas like swamps and riverbanks. They like those areas, but they can be found in drier climes. Some got more moisture than they bargained for. Image credit: Pixabay / skeeze Back in 2004, Ivan the hurricane included in its list of changes the exposure of cypress stumps. These were submerged off the Alabama coast, and did not  show signs of great age. Cutting into them will get you sap and the cypress tree smell. What happened to have them submerged and youthful? The Genesis Flood model of creation scientists gives the best answer. Sixty feet (18 m) beneath the green waves of the Gulf of Mexico, about 15 miles (24 km) off the Alabama coast, lie the remnants of an ancient forest of giant cypress trees.1 For hundreds of yards (meters), the stumps follow the lazy meanders of what appears to be an ancient river channel that flows down f

Some people need to get over the "Ewww Factor" to appreciate some critters for what they are, and how they're designed. I'm fascinated by certain reptiles, spiders, and so on (especially when dangerous ones are on television or behind glass). My wife gets the heebie-jeebies, though. So, if you can put bad feelings on hold and admire a creature for it's own sake, we're gonna have a ball! Image credit (cropped): Pixabay /  debbiedejager I'll allow that this post is difficult to write, but that's simply because I have to cowboy up and avoid using scatological humor. It ain't easy. The topic is the dung beetle (Egyptians worshiped the things, the artifacts are called scarabs ). These little critters are on almost every continent, and love poo. Not only are they coprophagous (they eat it), but lay eggs and live in it, spread it around, and actually perform a vital function on the prairie. And the Serengeti Plains. And... (The stercoraceous materi

It has been rightly said that there is no such thing as one side having facts, and the other side having a different set of facts, all being filed away and waiting for action. Everyone has access to the same facts, and it is the interpretation  of facts based on our worldviews that makes the difference. This is readily apparent in the origins debate, but it has applications in other areas. Morguefile /  Grafixar One side of a debate may think that what they consider supportive facts are actually items that both sides are in agreement on. Some owlhoot may use the definition of evolution as "change over time", then give examples of change, as support for his position. However, that same definition and examples are likely to be things with which biblical creationists agree with him. There are interpreted facts that are out of the agreement zone that prompt the most useful discussions. We at CMI have spent many hours writing and speaking on scientific and theological is

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article is going to take an eldritch direction, but will be somewhat prosaic at first. Scientists are not dispassionate and absolutely objective, despite what some may expect from them. They are human, and subject to the same pleonexia and other worldly desires as other people. Scientists also argue from their worldviews. We understand that because everyone thin k s and argues that way, whether aware of it or not. Generally speaking, secular scientists take a materialist (no God) view about life. However, they contradict their own presuppositions by searching for the physical location of free will , which is intangible by its nature. One scientist believes in the soul on a quantum level , and is close to Christian truth by saying that the soul is independent from the brain. Secularists also struggle with the concepts of ethics and morality , even trying to justify their incoherent beliefs with evolution . The only way to understand and explain the neces

Most folks know about young sunflowers following the sun across the sky, which has been a bit of a mystery until lately . Other plants have sensory mechanisms as well to improve their survival opportunities, gotta get the most of that sunlight, don'tcha know. Image credit: National Institute of Health , usage does not imply endorsement of this site Further research shows that plant sensors are far more intricate that just pointing a plant toward the light. They even activate "switches" that control the plant's behavior. This is yet another example of the purposeful engineering of the Master Engineer, and makes Darwinism even less plausible than it is now. Plants’ amazing sensor systems enable them to adapt in response to multiple environmental cues. Since plants can’t get up and move around, they have to grow, develop, and thrive where they are. One of the key factors in a plant’s life cycle is processing sunlight in the form of duration (day length), light

Adherents of molecules-to-man evolution are passionate about their beliefs, and many are intolerant of those who reject this position, whether for scientific or theological grounds, or both. They are not content to allow the study of origins to be an academic discussion, preferring to vilify their opponents. They engage in stalking, misrepresentation, libel, censure, dreadful logic, outright persecution , and more. This kind of behavior is typical of atheists, but it is distressing that professing Christians corinthianize with said atheists in maligning people that should  be their brethren in Christ. Naturally, atheists approve of this behavior, since it advances their naturalistic worldview and Christophobic agenda. Basil of Caesarea icon from  Wikimedia Commons The most egregious attacks seem to come from theistic evolutionists (who disingenuously call themselves "evolutionary creationists"). They have a man-centered low view of Scripture, preferring to allego

If y'all want to saddle up and see some interesting scenery, there are quite a few natural bridges and stone arches in the Western United States. Other places have them, but they seem to be more plenteous out West. A while ago, I posted about how these landforms have been crumbling , though folks say they've been sitting there for millions of Darwin years. Turret Arch image credit: Pixabay / skeeze So, the first flaw in the "deep time" view is that these structures are not so sturdy after all. Another flaw in that view is how, if uniformitarian explanations are true, we cannot see these structures being formed today, and we see them at high elevation. Some of the uniformitarian explanations have some amount of truth, but the Genesis Flood (about 4,300 years ago) model has the best explanation for the facts. Earth is young like Scripture indicates, and scientific evidence continues to affirm this truth. Freestanding rock arches and large natural bridges are ob

The public has a strange love affair with science, adoring scientists on one hand, but having increasing suspicion of scientists and scientific establishments on the other hand. I suspicion that one reason for distrust is that scientists have a tendency to conduct incomplete research and then announce conclusions. This has been occurring with increasing frequency, especially in the profitable scum-to-psychologist evolutionary field. Image credit: Freeimages / max brown Psychologists were doing a study on brain activity and spirituality using an MRI and Mormons (why they selected that religious group isn't clear, that's the first question raised). The study lacked a control group, and had results that could also be explained by other stimuli than spiritual good feelings. It's discouraging when you'd expect this kind of experimentation from inexperienced children, but it was conducted by supposed experts. This also helps illustrate the flawed view that spiritualit

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The termination of Dr. David Coppedge from Jet Propulsion Laboratory resulted in a high-profile court case where the ruling went against him. He was a team lead at JPL for the Cassini mission until his demotion and subsequent dismissal. The unexplained court decision coupled with the skulduggery and double standards of managers at JPL make the outcome very baffling indeed. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the entire situation was based on people being threatened by Coppedge's worldview, and that the firing was retaliatory. Artist's conception of Cassini and Saturn,  NASA/JPL (useage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The crime of Dr. Coppedge was "religious": he dared to offer, one-on-one, DVDs about Intelligent Design. The ID movement is definitely not biblical creationist , their adherents have diverse views. Basically, ID people want to provide scientific evidence that unguided evolution is impossibl

Scientists who believe in scum-to-skeptic evolutionism spend a whole heap of time searching for evidence of common ancestry. Various "transitional forms" have been proposed, but none are undisputed, even among evolutionists. What could be considered the Holy Grail for evolution has been called LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, which came about through abiogenesis (chemical evolution). Image credit: Morguefile / mconnors Some scientists think they've found LUCA, but are in sharp disagreement about where it is found. Also, they are using circular reasoning from their faulty presuppositions. This putative ancestor of all living things will never be found because it does not exist: life was Created, and this is the logical conclusion derived from the scientific evidence as well as the clear teaching of the Bible. Evolutionists believe the microbe LUCA was the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things.  Some evolutionists believe they know

Awkward title I have there, isn't it? There's a reason. Genome research is getting mighty awkward as well, especially from those who start with the presupposition that slime-to-stalker evolution is a fact. Years ago, some of the human genome was incompletely studied, and pronouncements were made that we had "junk" DNA. This "junk" was supposedly leftovers from our evolutionary past that had no function. Why did it have no function? Because scientists couldn't find a use for it, wrote it off, and moved on. Better scientists did further research with better equipment, and have junked the junk concept . Image credit: Pixabay / geralt You really have to hand it to secularists, the hubris continues. They found pseudogenes, and didn't understand what their purposes were, either. Those have been determined to be important as well. Further discoveries have been made, and now we have the pseudo-pseudogene. This whole thing shows that evoluti

Seems that just about everyone has an opinion, and lots of folks want others to know their cleverness. Problem is, many of them give equal cogitation to deeper matters as well as their favorite seasoning in a casserole. Not helpful. In fact, such uninformed (and often prejudicial) conjectures are actually harmful because of the negative reactions they provoke in others, and reinforce negativity in those expressing the opinions. Secularists are famous for demonizing Christians, and especially biblical creationists, for denying materialism and common-ancestor evolution. Quite often when they catapult their atheopathic sentiments at The Question Evolution Project , we feel there's no reason to give them a platform for odious rhetoric based on bad logic and little (usually no) research. Here's an example of a hateful reaction that is eradicated by a knowledgeable creationist. Although the article is from 2004, the material is still quite valid today. people like you are da

In August 2015, I ran some material about a fossil that was allegedly a snake with four legs , and this puzzled paleontologists. Instead of falling by the wayside after village Darwinists trumpeted this fossil as evidence for evolution, the subject is still disputed. Is it a lizard, or is it a snake? Mostly generated at Image Chef Ever notice that when evolutionists disagree, they're just scientists doing what scientists do, but if biblical creationists are not in lockstep , somehow that becomes proof that creationists are wrong, or even lying? Double standard. But I digress. Another interesting fact is that Evo Sith are up to their usual tricks of saying a loss of features is evidence of the increasing complexity of evolution, such as the blind cave fish  or elephants losing their tusks . (Sounds silly to me, too.) So, if  it's a snake, and it lost  legs, somehow, it becomes a transitional form? That'll be the day! They cannot find solid transitional forms because

You'd think that with all the dissonance in the jungle or zoo from various simians, they'd have a lot to talk about if they could. Well, they can talk, if the sounds and physical hardware are any indication. Physically, there's no reason those critters couldn't talk , but those things are not enough. Modified image from Pixabay /  RobinVerhoef It takes more than physical abilities to enable the making of speech. There has to be mental capacity as well. An ALS patient is unable to speak, but can communicate because of a neural implant that bypasses her body. Her mind makes it work. Ever see those statues of a chimp sitting on books (one of which says "Darwin") and pondering a skull? I want one, but they can be a bit pricey. Anyway, such deep thought is not going to happen from a non-human creature. Darwinoids cannot explain speech in humans but not simians. It’s not that monkeys don’t have the vocal apparatus to talk like humans. They just don’t have

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen My unregistered assault keyboard is ready to keep on going into 2017, and I'm looking forward to giving you more things to think about that refute evolution and support biblical creation. (Darwinistas object when you tell the truth about them, and the dogmas they insist upon.) Let's get going. The Apostle Paul managed to get quite a bit of attention in his time, and it was often explosive. When he and Silas preached in Greece, they outcry was that they "troubled the world" or "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6 ESV). He was called a "pest" by an enemy (Acts 24:5). They preached to pagan evolutionists in Greece ("preaching" was more of an explanatory dialogue), who had many gods, and they didn't cotton to hearing the truth of the one God. Worse than that, Paul proclaimed that God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things (Acts 17:24-25), which prompted some evolutionists and other philosophers to ridic